This page is unlinked from the main wiki site, and is for confidential discussion.
Note that it is not impossible for someone to stumble into it, but that is unlikely. However, if anyone wishes to survey us, the can .

A number of us have been discussing a parallel process, the details of which are below. Not everything is published presently, because we are a very informal group at this time, but with an idea that may become a reality, if at all possible.

If you'd like to know more, and especially if you'd like to contribute, please continue reading.

The following two graphics are, at this time, very large for a browser. If you wish to view them fully, they can be opened in a new tab or window:


Below are posted some of the responses to the graphics:


Thank you. This is very similar to the intelligent, organized, straightforward approach I'd hoped to see when the #PeoplesTribunal was being formed. It was disappointing to see the #PT become a divisive effort, insofar as the lack of communication created distrust and alienation of some potentially key supporters. I'm not at all sure where that #PT even stands now. Is it still active? Would this proposed new effort compete with #PT and risk alienating the key survivor supporters who are currently participating with that group?

The one thing I'm pretty certain of is that Fiona Woolf must be removed before this #CSAinquiry can inspire confidence and cooperation of the survivors, whistleblowers and/or their supporters. The ideas presented by David Burrows seem quite solid, regarding the legal challenge on bias. Pressing that case would allow a possible early win on the establishment's own legal turf, and I can't imagine quite how they could even argue against what is a simple and well established common law legal principle on conflict of interest. So, that is an action which should be taken immediately, in my opinion. The action will also let Ms May and Parliament know there is serious case law, legal oversight, and a well supported grassroots effort to speak in one formal voice on that.

What I'd most love to see would be these ideas presented to the same group meeting up with David Burrows in London, to consider combining them with that vision. This may be much the same as that group vision or it could be complementary. To be held to account, to be pressed into meaningful examination of institutional failures, the #CSAinquiry must have oversight and scrutiny from a powerful citizen force.

Your emphasis on the panel having a specific, designated strategy is brilliant; up until now, the public calling for this inquiry have not had one, as far as I have heard. The one thing that seems clear to me is that Ms May and The Powers That Be behind the current official effort are reluctant to aggressively pursue what is needed. With nearly every official charity having let down the children they were entrusted to serve, our biggest challenge has probably been developing any unified voice with enough mass support and defined purpose. These ideas seem to be a positive way forward.

In terms of panel makeup, I don't know that journalists would fit as panel members, but as allies, we do have some who could help keep this in the public eye from the "people's" point of view, including Newsweek's Leah McGrath Goodman and Liz Davies, in addition to Exaro, of course.

The power lies with us, so thank you for this thoughtful proposal on how to harness that. Should we try to get this introduced at the meeting then, in combination with the 'Manifesto' David Burrows has published this past week on his blog? Are you able to attend the meet up in London? Since I am overseas I'll be supporting from a distance but happy to contribute contacts and other support when possible.

Cheers and thanks again for sharing this proposal

2. Partial content redacted as requested

Thank you for sharing your views and painting the picture

I am very sad to hear that the proposed alternative CSA panel appears to have such insurmountable problems in the early stages, However as you were involved I am sure we can all profit and learn from the mistakes that were made.

The following are a few ideas which I hope will be useful in drafting a mission statement and terms of reference. Plus an agreement in principle (not for publication) on how difficult situations should be handled.

Whilst I have given evidence to Inquiries I have not been involved in establishing one so my views are purely from observation. They are mostly based on my 10 years experience as an advocate which included involvement in various groups established during that time to deal with user issues.

3. edited

Firstly my sincere thanks to [one] who has worked relentlessly to try to keep this on the agenda and who has offered common sense and support to all involved, especially in view of the hostility [that's been] encountered in the process.

I remain committed to a parallel committee, not rival committee to the CSA - with whoever eventually leads it. I subscribe fully to the fact that people will try to infiltrate and disrupt progress and as such that a sensitive form of vetting might be worked up along with other application criterion for the anyone wishing to put themselves forward.

However before we do move forward I believe that it's essential to resolve the difficulties, or at least try to, with the original PT group. Setting up what will be in competition [could] sub divide all of those who have shown an interest in this process, and play into the hands of those ill wishers out there. I would suggest that those interested have a phone or Skype meeting to "meet" and to go through the ideas set out by [one of us]. This would allow us to all sing from the same hymn sheet and set a positive tone from which to establish trust, a good working relationship and iron out any issues.

[editor's note] It appears that several of us would welcome such an online 'meeting' as mentioned above, so perhaps we could pencil in a date on which to do so; hopefully before the end of this month (Or even within 10 days/fortnight).

In the hope of gaining input from others who feel they'd have something to contribute, we are publishing this discussion. Presently, it is nothing more than that, a discussion of an idea.

But always remember that it's ideas which can defeat thoroughly evil ideologies - Indeed, it may be all that ever has.

The design of the organisation seems good to me. The question I have is - what is its precise purpose, strategy and tactics?

There is a new page, aims to start to answer this q.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License